(Review) Chronic fatigue syndrome, the immune system and viral infection.

I didn't read this properly, as I'm not really up on the terminology/science, but thought it may be of interest to others. (ps: I think Bansal is a bit psychosocial.)

Full title: Chronic fatigue syndrome, the immune system and viral infection.

Authors: Bansal AS, Bradley AS, Bishop KN, Kiani S, Ford B.

Source: Dept. of Immunology, Epsom and St. Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, Carshalton, Surrey, SM5 1AA and Chronic Illness Research Team, Stratford Campus, University of East London, London E15 4LZ, UK.

Abstract
The chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), as defined by recent criteria, is a heterogeneous disorder with a common set of symptoms that often either follows a viral infection or a period of stress. Despite many years of intense investigation there is little consensus on the presence, nature and degree of immune dysfunction in this condition. However, slightly increased parameters of inflammation and pro-inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin (IL) 1, IL6 and tumour necrosis factor (TNF) ? are likely present. Additionally, impaired natural killer cell function appears evident.

Alterations in T cell numbers have been described by some and not others. While the prevalence of positive serology for the common herpes viruses appears no different from healthy controls, there is some evidence of viral persistence and inadequate containment of viral replication. The ability of certain herpes viruses to impair the development of T cell memory may explain this viral persistence and the continuation of symptoms. New therapies based on this understanding are more likely to produce benefit than current methods.

That said, this seems to me to be a remarkably sensible paper, particularly since it's coming out of the UK (sorry, UK folks).

Click to expand...

That's what I thought. It seemed to make some sensible suggestions too. I don't understand the science well enough to really comment on it, but I was surprised to see something like this come from mainstream UK CFS research. That it did so could mean it will be harder to ignore too.

While certain groups in the UK want us to believe that ME is considered a biopsychosocial disorder almost universally this is not true even in the UK. Consider for example this article from the public service in the UK:

While certain groups in the UK want us to believe that ME is considered a biopsychosocial disorder almost universally this is not true even in the UK. Consider for example this article from the public service in the UK:

It is noteworthy that when a doctor made a study of viral illnesses in his patients over a 40 year period, of those who subsequently experienced central nervous system pathology, 67.8% were women (of whom a third also experienced ME/CFS) and 32.2% were men (of whom a third also had ME/CFS).

Click to expand...

Genetic factors affecting the likelihood of developing CNS pathology, and ME/CFS in particular, seem likely to me to be an increasingly important area of research. The 2:1 F:M ratio has always seemed suggestive to me, and this quote seems to suggest that this ratio represents proportionate genetic disposition to develop CNS pathology after certain viral illnesses. The quote really strikes me as a crucial clue to the big picture...worthy of some consideration...the 2:1 ratio, it seems, applies to CNS pathology in general, of which 1/3 includes ME/CFS...suggesting that the 2:1 represents genetic vulnerability to CNS pathology. I wonder who is the doctor referred to here?

While certain groups in the UK want us to believe that ME is considered a biopsychosocial disorder almost universally this is not true even in the UK. Consider for example this article from the public service in the UK: